Axanar - Crowdfunded 'Star Trek' Movie Draws Lawsuit from Paramount, CBS

[MrSouthpaw]

Factually JJ and Lin did 'go to bat' for Axanar and JJ admitted it publicly. That is highly relevant. And I wouldn't be surprised if they call on Lin as well to testify on what went on in that meeting.

I don't think Axanar will win, probably settle somehow. But this odd claim that JJ has nothing relevant to testify about is bizarre and flies in the face of reason.

 

[Jeyl]

The relative quality of Star Trek offerings is irrelevant. It's CBS/Paramount's IP, end of story, and they could use it to make a cheap flip-book with stick figures if they wanted to, and Alex Peters can't. Period.

I can.

So can anyone if they wanted to.

 

[batguy]

Factually JJ and Lin did 'go to bat' for Axanar and JJ admitted it publicly. That is highly relevant.

No, it really isn't relevant.

JJA's statements were never about whether Paramount technically had any rights to protect their IP. Nor were they about whether Paramount was giving up their rights to protect their IP.

JJA only spoke about whether or not Paramount would elect to enforce their rights against AP. And JJA's statements took place long after Paramount filed the case. That means it was long after the copyright infringement in question had already occurred.

(And all of this assumes that JJA's words could be taken as Paramount's formal position. That wouldn't hold up in court either. At best it might get discussed and rejected. AP was setting out to violate a law in hopes that it would not be enforced. It was AP's problem to make sure his information was correct about that.)



Paramount does not lose the right to protect their IP just because they had considered dropping a case against a copyright violator at some point.

You don't lose the right to guard your house & property against trespassers just because you elected not to press charges on a trespasser once.

 

[Inquisitor Peregrinus]

All the stuff with Abrams is just his opinion. He felt CBS/Paramount shouldn't kill Axanar. His friend -- also not an exec at either CBS or Paramount, and also with no say on who gets to do what with the I.P. -- Lin felt CBS/Paramount shouldn't kill Axanar. Anything they would say in court would be the same subjective opinion. The relative legal teams might depose Abrams and offer his statement, but Abrams himself will never testify, as his deposition would be -- as has been pointed out quite a few times -- so irrelevant as to be farcical.

There are a couple things that I feel need to be laid out here. It's a bit of an understatement to say the Axanar folks are making a big deal out of nothing. Here's AP's blog post from 22 October:

BREAKING NEWS! Axanar won a big victory in court yesterday. And while we can’t comment on the lawsuit, we do want to tell you that our legal team is very happy with what the magistrate judge handed down yesterday.

Here is what Jonathan Lane wrote about it in his amazing blog Fan Film Factor:

I don’t usually get breaking news as it happens, but Judge Magistrate Charles Eick just ruled on the Axanar defense team’s motion to have the court compel discovery (force the studios to deliver documents they were refusing to produce for the defense to look over before trial).
I was in court myself observing this morning, and I hadn’t expected the judge to rule so quickly. But Judge Eick understood that, with only 12 days left until the close of the discovery period, the clock was ticking. His ruling JUST came out, and I don’t even have the full text yet. All I have is this summary: On or before October 28, 2016, Plaintiffs shall…

1. serve supplemental responses without objection, and produce all documents responsive to, the following requests (except documents withheld under claim of attorney-client privilege): 14, 35, 36, 37 (limited to the works allegedly infringed and also limited to documents (which may be summary documents) sufficient to show revenues and profitability), 17 (limited to 2009 to the present), 18 (limited to 2009 to the present), 21, 25 and 29;
2. serve supplemental answers without objection to Interrogatories Nos. 8 and 9
3. produce for deposition a witness or witnesses prepared to testify as to Deposition Testimony Subject No. 28;
4. serve a privilege log identifying with particularity all documents withheld under claim of attorney- client privilege; and
5. to the extent not otherwise ordered herein, fulfill all discovery-related promises previously made by Plaintiffs to Defendants.

In short, Axanar got pretty much everything they wanted and the studios are going to have a VERY busy week ahead. Now, I’m going to need a couple of days to parse this all out and translate it from legalese into lay-person’s English. So please be patient. (During that time, I’ve also Jayden’s karate class, soccer practice, a friend’s birthday, a soccer game, and a birthday party for one of Jayden’s classmates. And so this is why I don’t blog professionally.)
But short summary: big win for Axanar during the discovery phase. The actual trial is completely separate, but for right now, the defense is going to have a very happy weekend.
there really is only one place for you to get your news on the CBS/Paramount lawsuit vs. Axanar, Fan Film Factor

Jonathan Lane consults real lawyers who are familiar with our case before he writes an article, so it isn’t nonsense and armchair lawyering from some hack blogger.

Please read Jonathan’s Blog on a regular basis to keep updated on lawsuit news!
Alec

His update from the 30th I'd love someone with actual legal knowledge to give a Cliff's Notes thumbnail as to whether this is anything, or more of his grandstanding:

We aren’t commenting on the lawsuit, but that doesn’t mean we can’t point out the best source for news for the lawsuit, Fan Film Factor, the blog by Jonathan Lane. He follows the lawsuit and has a couple of top notch lawyers who give him feedback on the case. Fan Film Factor is the best source of news on the lawsuit. So here is Jonathan’s latest:

ALEC PETERS’ attorney fires back hard at CBS/PARAMOUNT legal team in AXANAR LAWSUIT!

A guest blog by Jonathan Lane.



Last Thursday, the plaintiffs in the Axanar copyright infringement lawsuit filed a massive 122-page ex parte (emergency) application for order requesting three judicial rulings from Magistrate Judge Charles Eick:

1. Alec Peters must sit for additional deposition questions concerning new e-mails that were just discovered by the plaintiffs last Saturday.
   
2. The financials submitted by the defense should be de-designated by the court from “Highly Confidential” (lawyers’-eyes-only) to publicly available.
   
3. Defense must provide a privilege log.
   

In the long filing, the plaintiffs made a litany of accusations against the defendant and his legal team, including failure to turn over e-mails, refusal of the defendant’s attorney to provide a privilege log, attempting to hide previous communications between Alec and other attorneys prior to the filing of the lawsuit, not responding to communications from the plaintiffs’ attorneys, refusing to provide text messages and social media postings, and a whole slew of other items that I won’t bother listing due to blog length considerations (just read the first 18 pages of the application).

Well, it didn’t take long for defense attorney Erin Ranahan to file a response, and let me tell ya, she pulled NO punches in hitting back and hitting back hard! In short, Erin Ranahan did the following:

1. Accused the plaintiffs of violating the court’s rules for procedure.
   
2. Pointed out that, in doing so, the plaintiffs were wasting the court’s time and resources.
   
3. Accused the plaintiffs of violating confidentiality on multiple occasions (and not just leaking stuff to the Axanar detractors).
   
4. Accused the plaintiffs of misrepresenting facts (i.e. lying) in an ex parte filing…which is a huge no-no.
5. Asked the judge for sanctions against the plaintiffs for doing the above.
   

Also–and you know how I love the word “bombshell”–but there was a HUGE bombshell from the filing which I am FINALLY able to share with all of you (and hopefully it will reach the detractor “peanut gallery, as well)…

ALEC PETERS DID NOT WITHHOLD A SINGLE E-MAIL FROM THE PLAINTIFFS!

Yep, you read that right. I’ve kinda known the behind-the-scenes story for a while, but I didn’t feel comfortable saying anything until I saw Ms. Ranahan mention the e-mail production process in her latest filing (see page 14). So now it can be revealed how I am so certain that Alec did not withhold sending any e-mails to the plaintiffs.

Ready?

Alec WASN’T THE ONE who sent the e-mails to the plaintiffs!!!

So here’s what usually happens in cases where a whole bunch of e-mails need to be turned over to another party (or their attorneys) during discovery. Except in very rare instances, the actual defendant (or plaintiff) doesn’t send anything directly to the other side. To quote Ghostbusters, “That would be BAD.” Attorneys know best what should and should not be shared, and so their clients are mostly kept off of the legal battlefield. Instead, they hand everything over to their attorneys and the attorneys decide what is relevant and what is not.

How do they do this?
Well, it depends on how many e-mails we’re talking about. In the case of Paramount (who has, to my knowledge, still turned over ZERO e-mails), there are WAAAAAY too many employees and e-mails to search through every one. So if you look at pages 117-118 of Thursday’s application filing, you’ll see that, at least for Paramount, 20 employees (custodians) were determined to have been most likely to have discussed Axanar, Alec Peters, and/or Star Trek fan films. Now, each of these people probably had tens of thousands of e-mails (possibly hundreds) to sort through. So to save time, certain keywords were searched for. We don’t know what words they used (although the defense definitely WANTS to know because, well, ZERO e-mails produced!), but it’s likely to include “Axanar,” “Alec Peters,” S”tar Trek,” and “fan films”…among others.
In the case of Alec’s e-mails, there probably weren’t as many, but still a lot. So I’m certain there was a keyword search done as well at the Winston & Strawn offices to pull out the most obvious ones. And then they dove deeper to do a more thorough review. In the end, Erin Ranahan and her team determined which e-mails were relevant and then turned those over to the plaintiffs’ attorneys.
So the only thing Alec did in all of this was to copy his entire e-mail and documents folders onto a flash drive and hand it over to his legal team. Anyone attempting to accuse Alec Peters of some kind of shenanigans in purposefully refusing to or failing to turn over any e-mails that he had for discovery must now face the reality that such an action has never happened.
I hope the above 4-5 paragraphs will finally put this little tempest in a teapot to rest…although the cynic in me kinda doubts it.

Okay, back to the defense’s response…

To provide an idea of the hard-hitting tone of this filing (which was certainly matched by the hard-hitting tone of the previous filing from the plaintiffs), I’d like to share with you what I (and likely the judge, as well) saw first…

Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application is not only procedurally improper, it is wholly unnecessary. By their Ex Parte Application, Plaintiffs belatedly seek to raise discovery issues in contravention of the Court’s rules and are wasting the Court’s time and resources on issues that Defendants have already agreed on, or which Defendants have been trying to resolve with Plaintiffs while Plaintiffs have refused to engage in productive discussions. Even if the Court reaches the merits of the belatedly-raised discovery issues, the relief sought is mooted by offers made by Defendants—both in writing and in person—before Plaintiffs filed their Ex Parte Application. Indeed, Defendants have already offered to make Alec Peters available for a second deposition; have repeatedly attempted to meet and confer with Plaintiffs about parameters of the privilege log before preparing it; and Defendants informed Plaintiffs that they are making an additional production today that will moot the remaining issues. Plaintiffs’ counsel did not respond to these offers, making clear that Plaintiffs had committed to file their Ex Parte Application regardless of Defendants’ response. But Plaintiffs fall far short of demonstrating that they are entitled to the extraordinary relief.

To understand this first paragraph and much of the rest of this filing, we need to pause a moment and talk briefly about Magistrate Judge Eick. A bit of an amusing coincidence happened the Saturday evening before the Friday Axanar hearing. There was a dinner party for the parents of my son’s classmates, and one of the moms is an attorney. She and my wife were talking shop, and I heard this woman mention that she’d be arguing in front of Judge Eick on Monday. I came out of my glazed stupor to ask her, “Is that Judge Charles Eick?” She said yes, and I suddenly perked up, joined the conversation, and asked her what she knew about him (explaining a little about the Axanar case, which she’d heard about but thought it had settled).

According to this woman, the judge is VERY thorough and doesn’t like any attorney to play fast and loose with the rules. He’s fair but very strict, and he’s been known to chastise attorneys in open court.

The following Friday, I say exactly what she was talking about! After the hearing was over, I later joked that Magistrate Judge Eick was four parts law professor and six parts Louis Gossett, Jr. in An Officer and a Gentleman (just more of an older white guy version). Erin Ranahan spoke first, and during her 55 minute presentation, the judge interrupted her frequently and lectured her (often sternly) on the proper way she SHOULD have filled out the motion to compel discovery. Every little mistake was examined under a microscope (or so it seemed to me), and as I watched the smackdown, I thought to myself, “Damn, Alec is soooo screwed!” But then it was the plaintiffs’ turn, and Loeb & Loeb attorney Jonathan Zavin was given the same excruciating treatment. By the end of the two-plus hours of this punishing endurance match, I didn’t know what would happen…and neither did either of the attorneys. But I thanked my lucky stars that I wasn’t in their shoes!

And so, now that you know this, you can better understand the strategy of the defense response in this. First of all, Erin Ranahan establishes that the three orders the plaintiffs are asking for are all essentially moot at :

1. Alec Peters has already agreed to be deposed again (the only question is how long the plaintiffs get to question him).
   
2. The proper financials that the plaintiff referred to, now that they’ve been properly prepared by an accountant, no longer need to be marked “Highly Confidential” and the defense team is allowing them to just be marked “Confidential.” That means either party can see them…not just the attorneys. Whether they’ll be de-designated from “Confidential” to totally open to the public is a question for the judge, but my legal source says it’s probably enough for the judge that the defense is stipulating to dropping the “Highly.” It’s a good meet-in-the-middle compromise…and judges usually like those.
   
3. The defense has repeatedly offered to produce a privilege log, so no special order is needed there either.
   

In other words, everything the plaintiffs just tried to do with a 122-page filing was A COMPLETE WASTE OF THE COURT’S TIME (and the defense team’s). Now, remember what I just said about Magistrate Judge Eick being totally by the book? Well, take a look at another snippet from the response (page 4):

With less than a week left in discovery, Plaintiffs have not bothered to follow any of the Local Rule 37 or Local Court procedures governing discovery disputes and cannot satisfy the standard to obtain emergency relief. As the Court noted in In re Intermagnetics America Inc., 101 B.R. 191, 193 (C.D. Cal. 1989):

[E]x parte applications throw the system out of whack. They impose an unnecessary administrative burden on the court and an unnecessary adversarial burden on counsel who are required to make a hurried response under pressure, usually for no good reason. Such applications allow the applicant to jump ‘ahead of the pack’ and ‘cut in line ahead of those litigants awaiting determination of their properly noticed and timely filed motions.

​

But wait, there’s more. Apparently, misusing the ex parte application process can result in sanctions (in fact, it’s rule #1)

If you have made it this far, please go to Fan Film Factor for the rest!

I made it through a lot of that, but my ability to parse legal maneuvering from misrepresented bluster is not honed by a law degree.

Also, I'm a little surprised to see his donation button is still live. I figured the court would insist on a freeze for the duration of the suit.

--Jonah

 

[Wes R]

Knowing Abrams he just wants to be at the trial so he gets another 5 minutes of camera time. I wish that they'd just taken away Axanar and finished it as an official project that way we'd at least have gotten most of it. That said the Axanar lawyers must be loving this case even if they know they can't win.

 

[asalaw]

AP's claim that his shill knows his stuff is breathtakingly self-serving.

The guy just takes routine procedural events and pretends they're important. There's no there there. I've seen very few cases where there aren't cross-motions to compel, because parties legitimately disagree on what's responsive and what isn't. They're entitled to. Happens all the time.

I'm not going to parse that pile of crap because I have a life, but I'll pick one nit. It's not surprising that the plaintiffs have not turned over any emails (assuming that's even true). The case turns on whether Axanar infringed, which is an open-and-shut issue. It's overwhelmingly unlikely that there there are any documents in the studios' possession or control that would help the defense.

I can't even imagine a colorable defense that Axanar could mount against infringement that would be helped by anything in the studios' possession, except a gap in the chain of title -- and that ain't gonna happen, because it doesn't exist. Desilu ---> Paramount ---> Paramount/CBS Television. The end.

Axanar and AP are broiling, crispy critters, and they're just hoping the smoke stays thick enough that we won't notice.

 

[mkstewartesq]

AP's claim that his shill knows his stuff is breathtakingly self-serving.

This. Emphasis on "shill". In fact, that blog was originally part of the Axanarproductions.com website until fairly recently, when it was spun off and labeled "unbiased" – but at the end of the day its sole purpose, as you can tell by the reference to other "hack bloggers" - is to provide counter spin.

Anyone with any history in this hobby knows that this is actually part of a well-established playbook on the part of this particular defendant. See here. Especially review the comments, especially the one from our own Art Andrews.

 

[MrSouthpaw]

No, it really isn't relevant.

JJA's statements were never about whether Paramount technically had any rights to protect their IP. Nor were they about whether Paramount was giving up their rights to protect their IP.

JJA only spoke about whether or not Paramount would elect to enforce their rights against AP. And JJA's statements took place long after Paramount filed the case. That means it was long after the copyright infringement in question had already occurred.

(And all of this assumes that JJA's words could be taken as Paramount's formal position. That wouldn't hold up in court either. At best it might get discussed and rejected. AP was setting out to violate a law in hopes that it would not be enforced. It was AP's problem to make sure his information was correct about that.)



Paramount does not lose the right to protect their IP just because they had considered dropping a case against a copyright violator at some point.

You don't lose the right to guard your house & property against trespassers just because you elected not to press charges on a trespasser once.

You can make best-guesses, but no one ever knows what a judge will allow.

Of course JJ's statements occurred after the suit started. How could he and Lin try to smooth over something if it hasn't happened yet?

I never said Paramount lost their right to protect their IP, at all. That's just a straw-man.

 

[mistymills]

It's rather telling that there are two blogs about the case out there (the aforementioned one and AxaMonitor) and by virtue of not being pro-Axanar, AxaMonitor has been labeled anti-Axanar and a 'hater' blog. In reality, all AxaMonitor does is explain the ruling and break down Axanar's commentary to show what is correct and what is incorrect about it. Of course, anyone is more than welcome to actually go read the site and see if they disagree with my opinion or not.

 

[Solo4114]

You can make best-guesses, but no one ever knows what a judge will allow.

Of course JJ's statements occurred after the suit started. How could he and Lin try to smooth over something if it hasn't happened yet?

I never said Paramount lost their right to protect their IP, at all. That's just a straw-man.

No one knows 100%, but we can make reasonable, educated guesses based on the information we currently have.

And based on all of that, the reasonable, educated guess is that there isn't going to be much that JJ Abrams or Justin Lin have to offer this case.

There's basically no reason to depose either of them unless they have information pertaining to interactions prior to the filing of the lawsuit. Comments made after the filing don't help Axanar at all, because Axanar is (likely) raising an affirmative defense that they reasonably relied on Abrams/Lin's statements that they should be allowed to make their movie.

Logically, however, that doesn't hold up if the only statements from Abrams/Lin came after the lawsuit was filed. Why? Well, think it through. Paramount filing a lawsuit to allege copyright infringement is as clear a statement as you could ask for that the infringement in question is not being tolerated or permitted. A statement from someone who has worked with Paramount in the past that they had heard from someone at Paramount that the lawsuit was being dropped (which it then wasn't) is not permission to infringe. The timeline is wrong. Legally speaking, for Axanar to have relied on a statement that apparently permitted them to proceed, that statement would have to be made before the lawsuit was filed and before and C&D letter was sent. Basically, Axanar has to show that Paramount actually said something to them upon which they could have relied before the first warning shots (C&D) of a lawsuit were fired. My guess is that conversation never happened.

But even if it did, Axanar would then also have to demonstrate that it was reasonable for them to rely upon the statements made by Abrams and/or Lin, neither of whom are Paramount execs, and neither of whom reasonably could be argued to have the authority to determine who gets to use Paramount's IP.


So, again, the Abrams/Lin angle is pretty much ********. A judge might let a brief inquiry go forward, but if I had to guess, it would only be so that the judge could avoid any possibility of being overturned on appeal for failing to permit some procedural aspect of the case to go forward in a way that made it seem like the judge had their finger on the scale for Paramount. In the end, it won't matter even if Abrams is deposed because, legally, he'll have nothing to really offer the case. So it's not remotely a "victory" to be allowed to move forward with trying to depose him.

 

[asalaw]

I'd go farther back than that -- a detrimental reliance argument would have to go back prior to the beginning of the Axanar project to hold any water, IMO. Otherwise, he'd still be willfully infringing between the time he launched Axanar and the time of the statement.

Moreover, all JJ really said was that this was a crappy way to treat the fans, and the lawsuit was going away. So apart from the timeline impossibility, I just don't see how detrimental reliance gets them anywhere, because there's nothing in JJ's statment that reasonably implies they'd be permitted to go on infringing.

But even if it did, Axanar would then also have to demonstrate that it was reasonable for them to rely upon the statements made by Abrams and/or Lin, neither of whom are Paramount execs, and neither of whom reasonably could be argued to have the authority to determine who gets to use Paramount's IP.

Yeah, that's what I meant.

Onto, in my view, a much more pressing matter -- does JJ's entanglement in a broken timeline now constitute karmic justice?

 

[Solo4114]

I'd go farther back than that -- a detrimental reliance argument would have to go back prior to the beginning of the Axanar project to hold any water, IMO. Otherwise, he'd still be willfully infringing between the time he launched Axanar and the time of the statement.

Moreover, all JJ really said was that this was a crappy way to treat the fans, and the lawsuit was going away. So apart from the timeline impossibility, I just don't see how detrimental reliance gets them anywhere, because there's nothing in JJ's statment that reasonably implies they'd be permitted to go on infringing. Yeah, that's what I meant.

Onto, in my view, a much more pressing matter -- does JJ's entanglement in a broken timeline now constitute karmic justice?

Well, I expect it's taught him to keep his trap shut about stuff like this, especially regarding grand pronouncements of legal developments in cases on which he's not qualified to comment.

 

[batguy]

You can make best-guesses, but no one ever knows what a judge will allow.

Of course JJ's statements occurred after the suit started. How could he and Lin try to smooth over something if it hasn't happened yet?

I never said Paramount lost their right to protect their IP, at all. That's just a straw-man.

Sorry if I came off as a jerk about it.

 

[MrSouthpaw]

No one knows 100%, but we can make reasonable, educated guesses based on the information we currently have.

And based on all of that, the reasonable, educated guess is that there isn't going to be much that JJ Abrams or Justin Lin have to offer this case.

There's basically no reason to depose either of them unless they have information pertaining to interactions prior to the filing of the lawsuit. Comments made after the filing don't help Axanar at all, because Axanar is (likely) raising an affirmative defense that they reasonably relied on Abrams/Lin's statements that they should be allowed to make their movie.

Logically, however, that doesn't hold up if the only statements from Abrams/Lin came after the lawsuit was filed. Why? Well, think it through. Paramount filing a lawsuit to allege copyright infringement is as clear a statement as you could ask for that the infringement in question is not being tolerated or permitted. A statement from someone who has worked with Paramount in the past that they had heard from someone at Paramount that the lawsuit was being dropped (which it then wasn't) is not permission to infringe. The timeline is wrong. Legally speaking, for Axanar to have relied on a statement that apparently permitted them to proceed, that statement would have to be made before the lawsuit was filed and before and C&D letter was sent. Basically, Axanar has to show that Paramount actually said something to them upon which they could have relied before the first warning shots (C&D) of a lawsuit were fired. My guess is that conversation never happened.

But even if it did, Axanar would then also have to demonstrate that it was reasonable for them to rely upon the statements made by Abrams and/or Lin, neither of whom are Paramount execs, and neither of whom reasonably could be argued to have the authority to determine who gets to use Paramount's IP.


So, again, the Abrams/Lin angle is pretty much ********. A judge might let a brief inquiry go forward, but if I had to guess, it would only be so that the judge could avoid any possibility of being overturned on appeal for failing to permit some procedural aspect of the case to go forward in a way that made it seem like the judge had their finger on the scale for Paramount. In the end, it won't matter even if Abrams is deposed because, legally, he'll have nothing to really offer the case. So it's not remotely a "victory" to be allowed to move forward with trying to depose him.

Axanar can argue that JJ's words signal that a permission was given. It doesn't matter if JJ was authorized to do so or not. The people he is claiming Lin talked to would be authorized.

That is why they need to talk to JJ, and probably Lin too. To determine what went on in that meeting, and why JJ would say it was over. Because realistically, he would only come out and say that if he heard it. And he could only hear it from Lin or whoever Lin talked to.

The only proper response to your opinion that a judge will side with you is either "You don't know what a judge will decide" which I already gave, or "I don't think so." So unless you have the judges ear, so to speak, your argument amounts to "your wrong because I think so."....a non-argument.

 

[asalaw]

Well, I expect it's taught him to keep his trap shut about stuff like this, especially regarding grand pronouncements of legal developments in cases on which he's not qualified to comment.

Which seems to be a popular pastime.

 

[mkstewartesq]

Axanar can argue that JJ's words signal that a permission was given. It idoesn't matter if JJ was authorized to do so or not.

Still not getting this. This statement – of the alleged giving him permission – was made almost exactly 6 months after the lawsuit was filed. How does giving permission for the first time six months after the lawsuit was filed amount to a defense to the lawsuit? How does it help the defendants claim that the actions they took prior to the lawsuit being filed – as alleged in the complaint to the lawsuit and serving as the ground for the lawsuit – were somehow done pursuant to a permission that was not ostensibly granted until six months later?

Let's go a little bit farther here and look at the facts – Alec Peters has never claimed – since the lawsuit was filed – that the studios ever gave him permission. In fact, he noted in several public postings that he was frustrated because the studios would specifically not give him express permission nor any express guidance on what was permissible in a fan film and what wasn't. (For the moment, we will conveniently ignore the fact that, when raising money for the project, Axanar issued a press release touting itself as "the first officially sanctioned" fan film – Alec now claims that statement was never made even though the press release is still visible on the Internet, and even Axanar's own publicist admits that the statement was made but that it was "a mistake". ). So, given all that, how again are you claiming that some statement made six months after the lawsuit constituted permission to do the things that were done before the lawsuit was filed?

M

 

[MrSouthpaw]

Still not getting this. This statement – of the alleged giving him permission – was made almost exactly 6 months after the lawsuit was filed. How does giving permission for the first time six months after the lawsuit was filed amount to a defense to the lawsuit? How does it help the defendants claim that the actions they took prior to the lawsuit being filed – as alleged in the complaint to the lawsuit and serving as the ground for the lawsuit – were somehow done pursuant to a permission that was not ostensibly granted until six months later?

Let's go a little bit farther here and look at the facts – Alec Peters has never claimed – since the lawsuit was filed – that the studios ever gave him permission. In fact, he noted in several public postings that he was frustrated because the studios would specifically not give him express permission nor any express guidance on what was permissible in a fan film and what wasn't. (For the moment, we will conveniently ignore the fact that, when raising money for the project, Axanar issued a press release touting itself as "the first officially sanctioned" fan film – Alec now claims that statement was never made even though the press release is still visible on the Internet, and even Axanar's own publicist admits that the statement was made but that it was "a mistake". ). So, given all that, how again are you claiming that some statement made six months after the lawsuit constituted permission to do the things that were done before the lawsuit was filed?

M

The person alleging it is JJ Abrams. And his credibility is such that there is no good reason for anyone to think JJ lied and is passing along a fake story.

I address the order of events already by stating that JJ cannot smooth over a lawsuit that hasn't happened yet. Which is a clear admission that JJ's current statement does not give past-permission. And is logically also an argument that the news the lawsuit would be dropped is current "permission".

One can only wonder why you have chosen to intentionally ignore my past posts.

 

[mkstewartesq]

The person alleging it is JJ Abrams. And his credibility is such that there is no good reason for anyone to think JJ lied and is passing along a fake story.

I address the order of events already by stating that JJ cannot smooth over a lawsuit that hasn't happened yet. Which is a clear admission that JJ's current statement does not give past-permission. And is logically also an argument that the permission he got is current permission.

One can only wonder why you have chosen to intentionally ignore my past posts.

I haven't ignored your prior posts. I am just completely unable to make any sense of them.

"JJ cannot smooth over a lawsuit that hasn't happened yet." Perhaps you do not understand the definition of a license or of infringement. They are interdependent. An infringement is any activity that would, but for the presence of permission, violate the rights of another party. A license is the permission to do the act would otherwise violate rights and consequently also constitutes a promise not to sue for the act. So, in fact, the business of intellectual property is accomplished every day by the granting of the license, which is, using your terminology, exercising the ability to "smooth over a lawsuit that hasn't happened yet". CBS and Paramount had the right to grant-or to withhold- a license to Axanar at the time they were committing the infringing activities. They chose to withhold it, and they specifically made clear that they were not granting any permission. They were on record in late 2015 as stating that they "continue to object" to Axanar. Axanar did not stop its activities and, because they had no license, the studios sued in December 2015 for infringement

Disregarding everything that three attorneys – me, ASAlaw and Solo4114- have told you, simply because you refuse to believe it, doesn't change the FACTS. No matter how much you may want to spin that JJ's statement indicated some sort of permission, the simple fact is that, at the very moment he was making that statement, the studios were still forging forward with their lawsuit. No permission has been granted and every action of the studio demonstrated exactly the opposite, up to and including the very day that the statement was made. And regarding your theory that Axanar somehow believed from this statement that they had been granted this permission, the FACTS again work directly against your theory, because Axanar themselves doubled down in the lawsuit less than 72 hours later by filing a countersuit against the studio – not based on any theory that they had permission but rather, based on exactly the OPPOSITE, that they had NO permission from the studios but that principles of the fair use defense under copyright law entitled them to avoid liability for proceeding without permission.

So, given the studios made it clear at the time of JJ's statement that they were still not giving permission, and Axanar - AFTER hearing JJs statement - took a position in a public filing that they still had no permission from the studios, you really have zero grounds whatsoever to keep insisting that JJ statement actually constituted permission that should exonerate the defendants here, when neither the facts – nor the publicly stated opinions of ANY of the parties involved - support that.

Lastly, if you would bother reading any of the filings in the case, you will see that even Axanar is not claiming that JJ statement has any relevance as to whether there was any sort of permission given to Axanar either before or after the suit. They are pointing to JJ's statements as proof that JJ – as a proxy for the studio – recognizes the value of maintaining goodwill with the fans and the role fans play in keeping Star Trek alive and, therefore, that Axanar and other fan works actually help the studio to publicize Star Trek, rather than causing any financial harm that would support liability for copyright infringement, So, once again, even the defendants don't ascribe to your theory here, and aren't even attempting to make that kind of argument to the court.

One can only wonder why you have chosen to intentionally ignore my - and ASAlaw's and Solo4114's - past posts. And the law. And the facts. And the legal documents.

M

 

[asalaw]

I haven't ignored your prior posts.

I have.

Disregarding everything that three attorneys – me, ASAlaw and Solo4114- have told you, simply because you refuse to believe it, doesn't change the FACTS.

Some people never let the facts get in the way of a good shilling.

Lastly, if you would bother reading any of the filings in the case, you will see that [...] even the defendants don't ascribe to your theory here, and aren't even attempting to make that kind of argument to the court.

One can only wonder why you have chosen to intentionally ignore my - and ASAlaw's and Solo4114's - past posts. And the law. And the facts. And the legal documents.

M

I don't wonder at all. :lol

 

[Gimpdiggity]

Hi guys.

Just following the thread here, enjoying it.


Im just wondering with this whole debate about Abrams and permissions and such...even though Abrams is a well known and "powerful" director, he doesn't own the rights to the franchise, so doesn't this effectively make him an employee of Paramount/CBS?

Thats the way i would view it, as just a layperson.

So, if someone somehow took him saying something as giving them permission to use IP, wouldn't that be akin to someone claiming that their kit Ford Mustang that they are selling without official Ford licensing is okay because Bill who works on the assembly line said it was okay?

Or is the director/producer/rights holder different than just an employee/employer relationship?

Sorry if my question is stupid.